Oh, quite. The writing *is* the analysis, not some optional extra once the 'hard work' is 'complete'. We're told that there's a disconnect between modes of presentation and that which is being presented -- see 'writing up' -- but I don't buy it. That said, maybe this is because sometimes, the object of our attention wriggles this way and that, resisting analysis, resisting writing itself, and we have to find new ways to express ourselves.

At which point: a quick collage (w/ footnotes).

<boz: Yes, the site has become unrecognizable.> (1)

<chessgames.com: Apparently your interpretation of [f]reedom is the right to come barreling through a private place of business and insult as many people as you can, being rude and abrasive to the business owners and customers alike.> (2)

<mack: Freewheeling markets beget ideological contradictions.> (3)

<Nigel Short: <mack> Go on. Blame it on the right-wingers.> (4)

Notes

1. domdaniel chessforum

2. chessgames.com chessforum

3. Nigel Short

I could suggest maybe Dennett's "The Intentional Stance" or Barthes' great essay on The Death of the Author. <mack> might suggest something more recent, probably by Taussig.

<According to Jacques Derrida
There ain't no writer
There ain't no reader
Either.>

As an occasional educator, <mack> may have offered links to the top of the relevant forums, leaving the students -- ie, us -- to use our brains, if any, do some basic detective/research work, and dig up the relevant bits.

Or 'he' may have made a linkage error. We cannot presume.

I'm fairly confident that 'he' exists, because I 'know' him in 'real life'. But the author of a text, including this one, is a fiction constructed by readers.

yeah, i see the hypothetical issue, dom.

Oh, let's not and say we did.

Briefly: I already know what you think of tpstar, angslo, Daniel Freeman and the admin team, and yourself. I disagree with most of it - and I know the actual history there far better than you think. Also, your interminable essays of self-pity tend to bore me to tears, sorry.

Maybe you should just think about why your ignore list is probably second only to AJ's, instead - but don't tell me all about it, please please please don't. :s

<Dom: <I'm not certain how specializing in communication worked in this case - do you mean the ability to read between the lines of messages?>>

The stuff between the lines usually shows up as 10pt Verdana to me, so it often blends in with the lines so completely that I tend to forget many others can't read it. ;)

Heh, no, I was merely explaining that the terminology I have been applying to Finan was simply a broadcast on his own wavelength, so to speak. I do hope it will no longer be necessary, I don't really enjoy doing that.

Other than that, the point was that I don't like to see stuff like "crush him like a bug" from <you> - this is the sort of thing that can be expected from the likes of TheFocus, which, as you know, is not a compliment - but I hate to see a friend of mine sink to this level. And speaking to your newfound Xtianity, ;p whatever happened to "do unto others..."?! I don't recall you much enjoying being Finan's target not too long ago, so casually siccing him on someone else *was* way out of line.

Very interesting. How come I never knew anything about any of this? :-)

Man, some people can really say vile, evil, and just downright nasty things about one another... On a chess site of all places!!!

(I think iv'e had an epiphany! lol)

That's what the Net is for :-)

<Switch> sorry, I've been using too-short shorthand there - I should clarify.

So to say clearly: the person using the angslo / quantum.conscious handles has been a very, very, disturbed individual in his "angslo" era. This, btw, was also agreed on by tpstar, who entirely seriously advised him at the time to get counseling. When he more recently resurfaced as quantum.conscious, at first it looked like he may indeed have taken that advice. More recent posts, however, indicate that little, if anything, had changed, sadly.

I haven't seen the incident you refer to either, btw, but I'm willing to take your word for it, as I am not here 24/7, and something like that wouldn't have stayed for very long - but, mainly, because it wouldn't be too out of line with things I *have* seen from that individual.

i will not respond to your derogatory drivel by a similar rant about you, which i guess would've been equally misinformed.

let me just say i'm willing to give you another chance and forget about the sad, futile demonstration of judgement in the place of communication that you just provided.

of the things you seemingly know little about, the story of angslo and sitzkrieg, which both have been actively defended and embraced by tpstar, comes to mind. also you clearly don't have a clue about my relationship to daniel freeman. besides, you hardly know *anything* about me.

i have absolutely no intention of trying to impose the lacking information on you. if you simply would've acknowledged the vast amount of data you *don't have*, you possibly would've realized that the kind of "analysis" and character assault you just provided was highly premature.

however, we can rewind and retry. there's little purpose in trying to correct false bits and pieces in what you wrote, as long as you seemingly think (or at least behave as if) you know me and relevant info better than i do. if you simply <don't want to communicate>, then i'd appreciate if you would stay clear of <personal attacks> of the kind you just made. no matter your conviction about being "right".

as you're probably aware, the posting guidelines do not state that people who are "right" are allowed to make personal attacks. "guidelines" aside, if "personal criticism" can have the slightest chance of being constructive, then it requires an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. i invited you to a dialogue, and you disrespectfully lectured me about my faults. that scenario fails all requirements of being constructive.

so, why did you choose that reaction of the many possible?

brankat, i think the answer to that specific question is of minor importance compared to the much more fundamental realization that we generally know a whole lot *less* than we (and our brains) trick ourselves to believe.

we want things to be simple and clear, black or white, like the squares on a chess board. this leads to cognitive ease, which we again are dispositioned to mistake for "truth". the mental concept of recognition is linked to cognitive ease, too - which is one important reason why repetition plays a big part in propaganda. repeating a message lots of times, whether "true" or "false", using the same words and phrases, makes it cognitively easy (effortless) to process the info due to it being familiar - and research shows that we're then much more likely to consider the message to be "true".

this is a powerful weapon, and dangerous too. consider the phrase "unrepentant rulebreaker". by now most of you will immediately associate something with it, and possibly even consider that association to be "true". did anyone think of someone who has actually been singled out as a "rulebreaker" here by cg.com admins, who are the ones that are supposed to enforce the rules on this site? did you think of the "rulebreakers" dom (!), jfq, angslo, sitzkrieg/rotk, thefocus or others that you *know* have been put on kibitzing probatation one or several times, and in certain cases for really *long* periods of time?

my guess is no, because someone is and has been playing games with your minds, using intimate knowledge of psychology.

<my guess is no, because someone is and has been playing games with your minds, using intimate knowledge of psychology.>

Ah, tpstar's been at the Black Magic again - well, doesn't that just explain everything. :)

<brankat> - hey, I have a great idea! <frogbert> wants somebody to listen to him... and <you> have problems with insomnia, right? Why, this could be a match made in heaven. :D

Heh. No, srsly, if you want to help out with that situation, that would be good. I would be willing to try myself, except that I... just... can't... stay... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sorry. Just this, then:

<i invited you to a dialogue, and you disrespectfully lectured me about my faults.>

Close your eyes, and you can almost hear this exact sentence coming from AJ. And this is really why I see no point in engaging frogbert one way or another, and also the same reason both employ the site's ignore list option heavily: they share the characteristic of being utterly unable to accept any criticism. Which makes advice pointless.